„It would therefore be a crime, a formal derogation from the respect due to the Ecclesiastical laws, to blame by an insane liberty of opinion the discipline which the Church has consecrated, by which the administration of holy things and the conduct of the faithful are regulated, which determines the rights of the Church and the obligations of its ministry, and to declare that discipline hostile to certain principles of natural law or incapable of acting by inherent imperfection or declare it subject to the civil authority.‟

„But since, to use the words of the Fathers of the Council of Trent…‟ This is number 11. „… it is certain that the Church was instructed by Christ and His apostles and that the Holy Ghost never fails by daily assistance to teach us all truth, it is the height of absurdity and outrage towards it to pretend that the restoration and regeneration have become necessary to secure its existence and its progress, as if it could be believed that it was thus subject either to faintness, darkness, or other alterations of this kind. And what do these bold innovators seek except to give new foundations to an institution which would thereby be only man’s work and realize what Saint Cyprian cannot sufficiently detest by rendering the Church human from all Divine that is?‟

I think this is pretty clear. Gregory XVI condemns the idea of a restoration and regeneration of the Church necessary to secure its existence. Vatican II did not believe Gregory XVI, and this is why Vatican II ceased to be Catholic.

Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical on the unity of the Church, June 29th, 1896, called Satis Cognitum, speaks and pronounces as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church, the Catholic concept of the unity of the Church. He says, in number five, he quotes Saint Cyprian: „There is one God and one Christ, and His Church is one and the faith is one, and one the people joined together in the solid unity of the body and the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts.‟ And again, „The Church cannot be divided into parts by the separation and cutting asunder of its members. What is cut away from the mother cannot live or breathe apart.‟ And again, Saint Cyprian: „Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ. He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.‟

This is the unity of the Church. And Pope Leo XIII continues in number six: „But Christ indeed, who made this one Church, also gave it unity. That is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body, one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling.‟ (Ephesians 4:4).

And Leo XIII continues in number eight: „On the one hand, therefore, it is necessary that the mission of teaching whatever Christ had taught should remain perpetual and immutable, and on the other, that the duty of accepting and professing all their doctrine should likewise be perpetual and immutable.‟ And he quotes Saint Cyprian again: „Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His gospel He testifies that those who are not with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and who do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries. ‚He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.’‟ And then, Leo XIII remarks, quoting the Epistle of James: „Whosoever shall offend in one point is become guilty of all. Whosoever denies one truth the Catholic Church teaches, denies them all.‟

Remember what I said about objective and subjective. The Russian Orthodox priest somewhere in Siberia who has never heard of the Catholic Church under communism, perhaps did not know better. We are not judging him. We are not pronouncing subjective judgment. Objectively, he was a heretic and a schismatic, separated from the Church, and in the state of mortal objective sin against the first commandment.

Leo XIII, in number 10, describes the Church: „God indeed even made the Church a society far more perfect than any other. For the end of which the Church exists is as much higher than the end of other societies as divine grace is above nature, as immortal blessings are above the transitory things on the earth. Therefore, the Church is a society divine in its origin, supernatural in its end, and its means proximately adapted to the attainment of that end. But it is a human community inasmuch as it is composed of men. For this reason, we find it called in Holy Writ by names indicating a perfect society. It is spoken of as the house of God, the city placed upon the mountain to which all nations must come. But it is also the fold, presided over by one shepherd and into which all Christ’s sheep must betake themselves. Yea, it is called the kingdom which God has raised up and which will stand forever. Finally, it is the Body of Christ that is, of course, His mystical body, or the body living and duly organized and composed of many members. Members indeed, which have not all the same functions, but which united to one another, are kept bound together by the guidance and authority of the head.‟

This is the true description of the Church, and not what Vatican II blasphemously pretended to teach in the document Lumen Gentium, which we discussed yesterday. Leo XIII makes it abundantly clear that there is only one Church. There is no such thing as sister churches. There is no such thing as churches that are not united with the Catholic Church but are still considered „churches.‟ They are not churches; they are sects. They are religions that are enemies of Christ. Maybe they don’t want to be enemies of Christ, but objectively, they are. It might be that a mentally challenged person who is really nothing else but a psychopath, an arsonist, fire alarm prone, in politically correct terms, would set fire to this hotel. He does not want to kill you because he doesn’t even think of it, but he is our enemy all the same, objectively. And this is what I have to say about the churches that are not Catholic. All of them, without an exception.

It is hard to believe Vatican II would really dare to say the following, but it did. Unitatis Redintegratio number three: After having stated there’s only one Church of God, they nevertheless deface themselves when they say, „According to the condition of each church or community, these liturgical actions must most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and one must say, can actually give access to the communion of salvation.‟ They’re talking about Protestant services. I’ll give you the whole paragraph:

„The brethren divided from us…‟ (Leo XIII just said, quoting Saint Cyprian, they are not just divided from us. They are not our sister churches. They are the enemies of Christ. Not for Vatican II, perhaps because Vatican II is the enemy of Christ.) „…also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and one must say can aptly give access to the communion of salvation.‟

So here, we hear that the Protestant Mass of Thomas Cranmer in the Cathedral of Canterbury in England can truly give access to the community of salvation. This is heresy and it is blasphemy. This is not proximate heresy; this is direct heresy. This is condemning the popes’ judgment on the Protestant churches. It is condemning the popes that excommunicated Henry VIII and his followers. It is condemning the pope that excommunicated Martin Luther and his followers. It is condemning the popes that said if you go to a Protestant church on Sunday, you are excommunicated. This one line alone would be sufficient to grab this whole book and dump it where it belongs: in the trashcan.

But no, it is not sufficient yet for Vatican II. They want more: „It follows that the separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the ministry of salvation, for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and the truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.‟ So, if you go to a Protestant church, you get the grace derived from the Catholic Church? No. The popes have explicitly condemned this opinion, the Council of Trent and Vatican I, and especially recently, Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, which you can have from the Angelus Press. It’s short, easily understood. You should get it.

Pope Pius XI talks about the people „who hold that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has up to the present time hardly ever existed and does not exist today. They consider that this unity is indeed to be desired and may even, by cooperation and goodwill, be actually attained, but that meanwhile it must be regarded as a mere ideal.‟ And they immediately go on to say that, „The Roman Church too has erred, and corrupted the primitive religion by adding to it and proposing for belief doctrines not only alien to the Gospel, but contrary to its spirit.‟ Others again even go so far as to desire the Pontiff himself to preside over their mixed assemblies.„ This is the ecumenical meetings with the Anglican Church. ‟For the rest, while you may hear many non-Catholics loudly preaching brotherly communion in Jesus Christ‟ (Vatican II is among those non-Catholics), ‟yet not one will you find to whom it ever occurs with devout submission to obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ in his capacity to teacher or ruler. Meanwhile, they assert their readiness to treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, as equals with an equal.„ Assisi. ‟But even if they could so treat, there seems little doubt that they would not do so only on condition that no pact into which they might enter should compel them to retract those opinions which still keep them outside the fold of Christ.„ You can easily see that it is always the Catholic Church, the so-called Catholic Church, with Pope John Paul II (who’s definitely not a Catholic), to say that we retract opinions. They don’t. The Protestants have not retracted one of their errors.

And in Mirari Vos again, Gregory XVI says, in number 14: „We now come to another and most fruitful cause of the evils which at present afflict the Church and which we so bitterly deplore. We mean indifferentism, or that fatal opinion everywhere diffused by the craft of the wicked that man can, by the profession of any faith, obtain the eternal salvation of their souls.‟ He calls it a wicked opinion. He says, „It’s a wicked opinion diffused by the craft of the wicked that man can by the profession of any faith obtain the eternal salvation of their souls, provided their life conforms to justice and probity. But in a question so clear and evident, it will undoubtedly be easy for us to pluck up from amid the people confided to your care so pernicious an error.‟ That means what Vatican II writes in the decree on ecumenism has been called pernicious error by Gregory XVI. „The apostle,‟ meaning Saint Paul, „warns us of it. One God, one faith, one baptism. Let them tremble then who imagine that every creed leads by an easy path to the port of felicity and reflect seriously on the testimony of our Savior Himself, that those are against Christ who are not with Christ, and that they miserably scatter by the fact that they gather not with Him, and that consequently they will perish eternally without any doubt if they do not hold to the Catholic faith and preserve it entire and without alteration.‟ Let them hear Saint Jerome himself, relating that at the epoch when the church was divided into three parties, he, faithful to what had been decided, incessantly repeated to all who endeavored to win him over, „Whoso is united to the chair of Peter is with me.‟ Now, mind you, he said, „To the chair of Peter.‟ He did not say, „To the present successor of Peter.‟ He said, „To the chair of Peter.‟ It is the present successor of Peter who is not united to the chair of Peter, because he says things directly opposed to what his predecessor said.

And in number 15, Gregory XVI says: „From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd, or rather extravagant maxime, that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man.‟ And to this I will have to come back with the document of Liberty of Conscience in Vatican II, because Vatican II really went into teaching almost everything that had been condemned by the previous popes. It is of no wonder when we find the present pope pronouncing and uttering heresy; he just follows the council he praises so often and so much as being the second Pentecost, which is blasphemous to say. The Holy Spirit came once.

„But the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them, the Protestant and divided churches, as means of salvation.‟ Pope John Paul II, in Catechesi Tradendae number 32, says, (quorum conatibus Spiritus Christi salutem operari non recusat), „To the efforts of whom the Spirit of Christ does not deny to give salvation.‟ (Quorum conatibus) is referring to the previous sentence talking about Ecclesiae Protestantae, the Protestant churches. The Protestant churches, to the efforts of whom Christ does not deny to give salvation. That is heresy. If the pope had said that a Protestant could possibly be saved in spite of the religion he belongs to, I would not have objected. Nobody would have been able to object. No. He said, „For the efforts of which Christ does not deny salvation.‟ Jesus Christ, our Lord, is not capable of giving salvation to the efforts of the Protestant churches because God cannot contradict himself. One church, one faith, one baptism. The Protestants, some of them, have the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism. Not a single Protestant religion has our faith. They deny the real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. They deny the sacramental priesthood. They deny the Sacrament of Confession. They do not have one faith with us. They deny the faith. And Saint Cyprian, affirmed by Leo XIII and Gregory XVI said, „If they deny only one point of faith, they deny all of them. Therefore, they are not even Christians in the real sense of the word.‟

Baptism has never turned a human being into a real Christian. In order to be a real Christian, you also have to agree to the faith. A Protestant child that knows no better implicitly agrees with the Catholic faith until the age of reason and some people beat it out of him. A Catholic child does the same until it comes under the influence of Vatican II and the people who belong to the Church of the New Advent, as it is called in Redemptor Hominis by John Paul II.

Then, of course, if the Protestant churches, according to the viewpoint of Vatican II and the heretical present pope, have the faith, then how come they deny some things that we hold firm? How come they deny some things that we hold steadfastly to? Well, this is a question the pope doesn’t answer because the council hasn’t answered it. It’s one of the tricks of Modernism, as Pius VI said in his encyclical Auctorem Fidei, condemning the pseudo-synod of Pistoia. The trick of the Modernists is to be ambiguous, to teach things that can be taken back halfway, but also interpreted in another way. And as Saint Pius X says in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis on Modernism in 1907, there he says, „The Modernists, they always give you some and then take away some other things.‟ When you discuss with a priest of the Opus Dei, as I have had the doubtful pleasure of doing, when you discuss with a priest of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, as I have had the doubtful pleasure of doing, they will always say, „But is the pope not Catholic? Because see, here he says something, and it’s so beautifully Catholic.‟ No. The pope cannot be a Catholic if he says 99% of the time the true things and 1% of the time the wrong things. There are 100% Catholics or no Catholics. That’s what Saint Cyprian said very clearly, and he was just referring to our Lord himself. Our Lord said, and I quoted this yesterday, „For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.‟ One jot or one tittle. You say no to one thing only the Catholic Church teaches, you have just left the Catholic Church, really left it, left it for good until you convert and come back, until you convert and submit yourself again to the entire teaching of the Church. Iota Unum.

The Protestants therefore are not Catholics. They’re outside the Church. They’re outside the house. They do not belong to any type of Oecumene. They cannot be dealt with in ecumenical activities. The only thing you can do with the Protestants is pray for their conversion to the Catholic faith. And unfortunately, I have to say the same thing about those people who adhere to Vatican II, as the Fraternity of St. Peter does, and to those people who believe the Novus Ordo can be celebrated in a Catholic way, as the Fraternity of St. Peter does. Mind you, their individual priests might think quite differently, and some of them do. But the society itself has signed a paper to that point.

And of course Vatican II, needless to say, demands dialogue with the Protestants. I don’t know what they want to discuss. I have lived in Rome for 15 years. For 15 years, I was always confronted with the desire for dialogue. I’ve never understood what they really want to discuss. Conversion was never the issue. Conversion was never the topic. Every year in January, there was a week, the week following the 25th of January, which is the conversion of St. Paul, mind you. They had the Ecumenical Week, and there were priests and bishops coming in from the Secretariat for the Unity of the Christians. Apart from the fact that most of them don’t even know how to celebrate Mass—I had the Bishop Secretary there. This is public, so I might as well talk about it. I had the Bishop Secretary of the time there, Torella Cascante, who needed the book to pronounce a correct blessing at the end of Mass. We did not need the book. These are the people who decide on what we will discuss with the Protestants. Well, I’m not surprised. The new Mass of Paul VI was written up by, among other members of the commission, seven Protestants. People have asked me, „How do you know? Please, where’s the footnote? Please give me the quotation.‟ You have the quotation. Ask Cardinal Stickler in Rome. Read in the Latin Mass magazine, the interview with Cardinal Stickler, where Cardinal Stickler says, „There were seven Protestants in the commission. I should know. I was a member of the commission.‟ And Cardinal Stickler has repeatedly, in private—I was his secretary for two years, we talked almost every day—repeatedly in private, told me about it. Repeatedly. So this is the footnote. If that’s not good enough, I can’t help you.

„Christ summons the Church as she goes her pilgrim way to that continual reformation.‟ To that continual reformation. Mirari Vos condemned the claim for a necessary reformation. The Ecclesia Semper Reformanda does not mean that the Church as a whole, the Church as the mystical body, the Church as the perfect society has to be reformed. That’s impossible. The Ecclesia Semper Reformanda means the members of the Church, and they badly need it more than ever. „Christ summons the Church as she goes her pilgrim way to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she’s an institution of men here on Earth.‟ You’re right about that. „Consequently, if in various times and circumstances there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in the Church’s discipline, or even the way that the Church teaching has been formulated—to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself—these should be set right at the opportune moment and in the proper way.‟

No, sir. The very concept of condemning the formulation of Church teaching in the past is heretical, and it has been condemned explicitly in Mortalium Animos when Pope Pius XI says, number 12 (now, don’t get me confused, I’m not quoting Vatican II now, but the Catholic Church, in the person of Pius XI):

„How so great a variety of opinions can clear the way for the unity of the Church we know not, so far as dialogue is concerned. That unity can arise only from one teaching authority, one law of belief, and one faith of Christians. But we do know that from such a state of affairs, it is but an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism, and to the error of the modernists who hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative. That is, changes according to the varying necessities of time and place and the varying tendencies of the mind, that it is not contained in an immutable tradition, but can be altered to suit the needs of human life.‟

Number 13: „Furthermore, it is never lawful to employ in connection with articles of faith the distinction invented by some between fundamental and non-fundamental articles.‟ This is exactly what Unitatis Redintegratio number six does. I say again, number six of Vatican II says: „The reform is needed, for even in the way that the church teaching has been formulated, to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself, this should be set right at the opportune moment and in a proper way.‟ So they are distinguishing the Depositum Fidei, the Deposit of Faith, from some other teachings of the Church, which obviously seem to be minor. They are not. I repeat what Pius XI said: „Furthermore, it is never lawful to employ in connection with articles of faith the distinction invented by some between fundamental and non-fundamental articles, the former to be accepted by all, the latter being left to the free acceptance of the faithful.‟ I quoted Humani Generis yesterday where Pius XII says, „Ordinary teaching binds every Christian.‟ You freely, without proving your point, deny ordinary teaching, you just leave the Church, and please join another one. The supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal motive, the authority of God revealing, and this allows of no such distinction; that faith is absolute. It is not relative. All true followers of Christ, therefore, will believe the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in the sense defined by the Ecumenical Vatican Council (number one, of course), with the same faith as they believe in the incarnation of our Lord. If somebody tries to tell me, as John Paul II does, that the Orthodox Church is our sister church, I reject that. The Orthodox Church rejects the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff as defined in Vatican I. Therefore, they reject everything else.

They actually really use the term. „Worshipping common, communicatio in sacris, is not to be considered as means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. There are two main principles upon which the practice of such common worship depends. First, that the unity of the Church which ought to be expressed, and second, that of sharing in the means of grace. The expression of unity very generally forbids common worship.‟ However, and then comes the paragraph that I quoted: „For the good of the faithful, for promoting unity, you may nevertheless do it.‟ And later on, the same document says (first they say communicatio in sacris is not the proper means, but in number 15 they say): „Therefore, some worship in common, communicatio in sacris, given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible, but is encouraged.‟ This is the most double-tongued council in history, and these are the most double-tongued documents in the history of the Church. In one point they say, „Communicatio in sacris is not the proper means,‟ then they say it is encouraged, left up to the local authority.

Doesn’t that sound familiar to you? When they say here, „The Lord’s death and resurrection, when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life and communion with Christ, and await His coming in glory.‟ That’s a proper response to the Mysterium Fidei after the consecration in the new Mass. Vatican II here, and again, the interpretation of this paragraph is not mine; the proper interpretation of this paragraph is to be found in the new liturgy. Vatican II, in this line here, gives up the doctrine of real presence and sacramental priesthood when it demands dialogue with people who reject the presence of Christ on the altar and reject the sacramental priesthood. I do not dialogue with them. I explain the faith to them and then I tell them right in their face, „Take it or leave it.‟

The result was the following statement. This is not Vatican II itself; it’s a document resulting from Vatican II. In number two of the Common Declaration, they say: „Among the obstacles to be found in the way of the development of these brotherly relationships of trust and esteem, there is the memory of those painful decisions, acts, and incidents which led in 1054 to the sentence of excommunication delivered against Patriarch Michael Cerularius and two other persons by the legates of Rome.‟ They call these painful decisions, and they call that incidents. Acts and incidents. That means it was a painful decision, an act, and an incident when Saint Leo IX excommunicated the heretical and schismatic patriarch. Saint Leo IX excommunicated them. The present pope never gets tired of quoting this, but he overlooks that these excommunications were pronounced most of the time by saints. It was Saint Leo IX who excommunicated that schismatic patriarch. It was Saint Gregory VII who excommunicated the emperor, and it was Saint Pius V who fought the Turks, a fact for which now John Paul II goes out of his way to apologize.

As a matter of fact, the few lines of this document that I’ve read to you are so scandalous, so efficient in their lies, that I can only recommend to you to have a look at the present relations between the Catholic Church in Rome and the Eastern Churches. In one of the next issues of the Catholic Family News, you will be able to read John Vennari’s conference given in Philadelphia three weeks ago. […] Saint Josaphat died for the unity of the Ukrainian church and Rome. Pope John Paul II mocks the martyrs who have died for the unity of the Ukrainian church and Rome. When he says—he doesn’t say it personally, that’s the way you do it today, you let the congregation sign this stuff—and in the Balamand Statement, the Catholic priests to Ukraine here are asked to submit to the Orthodox local bishop. This is high treason. If it was not the pope, he would be due to capital punishment, except that no earthly authority can judge the pope on these things. But let us remember what Innocent III said: „The less a man is judged by man, the more he will be judged by God.‟

Thank you.